What do u think?
Is Zenwalk the better an modern Slackware?

MfG
Matthias

Matthias Roeske wrote :

> Is Zenwalk the better an modern Slackware?

No. Zenwalk is just another Slackware derivative, if you want the real
thing go for Slackware.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Matthias Roeske wrote:

> What do u think?
> Is Zenwalk the better an modern Slackware?
>
> MfG
> Matthias

Zenwalk is very good. It does a better job of detecting hardware than stock
Slackware and its default xfce4 window manager means good quality GUI on
old machines.

Ian

Thomas Overgaard wrote:

>
> Matthias Roeske wrote :
>
>> Is Zenwalk the better an modern Slackware?
>
> No. Zenwalk is just another Slackware derivative, if you want the real
> thing go for Slackware.

If you want the MODERN thing... go for Vector.

anc
"Slackware: The best distro 1996 has to offer."

Matthias Roeske <silithium@gmx.de>:
> What do [you] think?
> Is Zenwalk better [than] modern Slackware?

Is an apple better than an orange? Depends whether you wanted to eat
an apple or an orange.

Zenwalk is a very neophyte friendly install, is stripped down to offer
reasonably good choices for software (not everything including the
kitchen sink), and it will fit well into a 2 Gb disk. I think it's a
perfectly usable system. Others might think it's a good introduction
to Slackware. It comes with Firefox and T-Bird, and wm is xfce.


--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html

s. keeling <keeling@spots.ab.ca> trolled:

> Zenwalk is a very neophyte friendly install, is stripped down to
> offer reasonably good choices for software (not everything
> including the kitchen sink), and it will fit well into a 2 Gb
> disk. I think it's a perfectly usable system. Others might think
> it's a good introduction to Slackware. It comes with Firefox and
> T-Bird, and wm is xfce.

Why would Zenwalk be a better introduction to slackware than
slackware itself?

cordially, as always,

rm

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:53:24 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

>> Zenwalk is a very neophyte friendly install, is stripped down to offer
>> reasonably good choices for software (not everything including the
>> kitchen sink), and it will fit well into a 2 Gb disk. I think it's a
>> perfectly usable system. Others might think it's a good introduction to
>> Slackware. It comes with Firefox and T-Bird, and wm is xfce.
> Why would Zenwalk be a better introduction to slackware than slackware
> itself?

because it is kinda "core" version of slack. 'scuse me, but miniature
version of slack seems a good way to introduce slackware.

Mad-Eye Moody (zhillaREMOVEBRA@spymac.com) writes:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:53:24 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:
>
>>> Zenwalk is a very neophyte friendly install, is stripped down to offer
>>> reasonably good choices for software (not everything including the
>>> kitchen sink), and it will fit well into a 2 Gb disk. I think it's a
>>> perfectly usable system. Others might think it's a good introduction to
>>> Slackware. It comes with Firefox and T-Bird, and wm is xfce.
>> Why would Zenwalk be a better introduction to slackware than slackware
>> itself?
>
> because it is kinda "core" version of slack. 'scuse me, but miniature
> version of slack seems a good way to introduce slackware.

But the only reason someone would need a miniaturized version is
if they don't have cable internet, and are downloading the distribution.

This is really the focus of some distributions, the noted Vector Linux
is another example. They cut things down to make a "small distribution"
but it's not really that small. In the case of Vector, it would seem
they cut out the text only applications, and then saddle you with
GUI based apps, and not a wide variety of them for a given use. At
least that was the impression I got when I looked it over, about the
time someone was boasting about how great it was (clearly mimicking
the sales pitch of the distribution), and then turned around and
asked where to get basic applications that were missing.

In these days of large hard drives, and the reality is that most
"beginners" will have large drives (because they can't imagine
using something old and being "beginners" they won't have strayed
off the path), and then how compact the distribution is will be
irrelevant. I've said it before, I did have problems when I
first tried Linux, but then I was using a 486 with a 240meg hard
drive, in 2000, and not much would fit on there. When I got a system
with a 2gig hard drive, I just told Slackware to put all of it on,
and I just sat back while it installed. When that can happen,
the reality is that it ends up being the simplest process, but
you also end up with a good variety of programs, which means you
can get going without needing to track something more down and install
it, something the "beginner" is likely to have problems with.

There is no curve of increased complexity when there are more
applications in the distribution. Most people will never bother
with most of them, but they'll be there. But they don't have
to configure those unused programs, and not having them will
not make the applications they are using preconfigured or
ready to go.

Michael

Mad-Eye Moody <zhillaREMOVEBRA@spymac.com> trolled:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:53:24 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

> >> Zenwalk is a very neophyte friendly install, is stripped down to offer
> >> reasonably good choices for software (not everything including the
> >> kitchen sink), and it will fit well into a 2 Gb disk. I think it's a
> >> perfectly usable system. Others might think it's a good introduction to
> >> Slackware. It comes with Firefox and T-Bird, and wm is xfce.
> > Why would Zenwalk be a better introduction to slackware than slackware
> > itself?

> because it is kinda "core" version of slack. 'scuse me, but miniature
> version of slack seems a good way to introduce slackware.

Why would a miniature version of slack be better than slack as a way
to introduce slack? Does it simply satisfy some anal feeling you
have about the way things should be done?

cordially, as always,

rm

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:43:38 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

>>> Why would Zenwalk be a better introduction to slackware than slackware
>>> itself?
>> because it is kinda "core" version of slack. 'scuse me, but miniature
>> version of slack seems a good way to introduce slackware.
> Why would a miniature version of slack be better than slack as a way to
> introduce slack? Does it simply satisfy some anal feeling you have about
> the way things should be done?

i agree, but am also not that stuck not to see their side. core version
could be good for new slackers because... its core. crucial and important
parts are in, other are not.

disclaimer: yes, i know i'm not supposed to feed realto